4 ms·

> The conclusions are only logical that this is an area where government support and intervention can reap vast societal benefits. If it's not an economical pr

by wtbob 11y ago

> The conclusions are only logical that this is an area where government support and intervention can reap vast societal benefits. If it's not an economical proposition, involving the government surely can't help. The issue is that folks want a very high caregiver/child ration, for what is essentially unskilled labour (any non-pathological adolescent or adult can take care of children acceptably). So the supply of workers (i.e., just about everyone) vastly outstrips the demand. Why not just go back to single-earner households and extended families?

smtddr 11y ago
>>any non-pathological adolescent or adult can take care of children acceptably Define "acceptably". Some babysitters think it's acceptable to just chat on Facebook all day and plant the child in front of the TV for 10 hours. That's not acceptable to me, but that's more or less what you get for very cheap labor; just someone to keep you legally clear from abandoning a minor. Like those super-cheap bare minimum car insurance that does nothing but keep you legally driving. Here's the definition of acceptable when it comes to my children: Take kids to parks and museums. Can avoid using profanity around them. Won't smoke around them. Won't be speeding down the highway with them. Can be trusted not to fill my children with junk food. Can truly trust them to actively watch the kids so they don't do something crazy like sticking a fork into a power outlet or turning on the gas stove without the flame, thus filling the house with gas. Right now, the only people my wife & I trust with our kids are their grandparents... aside from the pre-school teachers. Finding quality childcare is harder than you think.
Daishiman 11y ago
How do you want to go back to single-earner households when the vast majority of families don't have enough income to support all their members from two salaries? There is no economic incentive, system-wide, for having less people working for more money.
sawthat 11y ago
Because many intelligent and skilled people want to have children, and they'd rather work in a challenging and rewarding job that pays them enough to pay for child care. That's why.

by wtbob 11y ago

smtddr 11y ago

>>any non-pathological adolescent or adult can take care of children acceptably Define "acceptably". Some babysitters think it's acceptable to just chat on Facebook all day and plant the child in front of the TV for 10 hours. That's not acceptable to me, but that's more or less what you get for very cheap labor; just someone to keep you legally clear from abandoning a minor. Like those super-cheap bare minimum car insurance that does nothing but keep you legally driving. Here's the definition of acceptable when it comes to my children: Take kids to parks and museums. Can avoid using profanity around them. Won't smoke around them. Won't be speeding down the highway with them. Can be trusted not to fill my children with junk food. Can truly trust them to actively watch the kids so they don't do something crazy like sticking a fork into a power outlet or turning on the gas stove without the flame, thus filling the house with gas. Right now, the only people my wife & I trust with our kids are their grandparents... aside from the pre-school teachers. Finding quality childcare is harder than you think.

Daishiman 11y ago

How do you want to go back to single-earner households when the vast majority of families don't have enough income to support all their members from two salaries? There is no economic incentive, system-wide, for having less people working for more money.

sawthat 11y ago

Because many intelligent and skilled people want to have children, and they'd rather work in a challenging and rewarding job that pays them enough to pay for child care. That's why.